Decades of files that the Boy Scouts of America compiled on sexual abuse allegations can be used in a lawsuit claiming the organization was ineffective at preventing abuse, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

About 1,000 files, with names redacted, have been given to the lawyers for three men who say their scoutmaster abused them from 1971 to 1983 when they were Boy Scouts. The files are sealed by court order for now but could be made public at trial, plaintiff's attorney Tim Kosnoff said.

The files include court records and news accounts, as well as rumors and tips from parents and others. Names of accusers, their parents and the alleged perpetrators were removed.

The Boy Scouts has kept such files since the group's inception in 1910 but destroyed records when alleged perpetrators either turned 75 or died, plantiff's attorney Mark Honeywell said.

In addition to the 1,000 files from the Washington case, the attorneys have 1,900 files from a separate court case.

A call to the Boy Scouts organization, based in Irving, Texas, was not returned Thursday.

A statement from the organization said it appealed to the high court out of concern that turning over the files could undermine the effectiveness of Scout youth protection programs.

The Boy Scouts organization says it trains boys how to recognize, resist and report abuse, and background checks for new volunteers have been required since 2003.

The national Scouts organization, its local branches and the former scoutmaster, Bruce Phelps, were named as defendants in the sex abuse lawsuit.

Phelps, 53, of Seattle, settled his portion of the lawsuit months ago and admitted to sexual abuse in a deposition, according to the Kosnoff and Honeywell.

Phelps' attorney, Kenneth Kagan, confirmed the settlement but said Phelps did not admit to all of the plaintiffs' allegations.

Seattle police detectives looked into Phelps' case, but no criminal charges were filed, Kagan said. The lawsuit was filed about 20 years after the alleged abuse ended, and the age of the claims played into the police's decision, Kagan said.

What hypocrisy! San Fran (as well as other cities and groups) cut off all funding to the Boy Scouts because they do not allow homosexuals in their (private) organization. Yet, when a few homosexuals "sneak in" and abuse boys, then the Boy Scouts are sued.

What hypocrisy! San Fran (as well as other cities and groups) cut off all funding to the Boy Scouts because they do not allow homosexuals in their (private) organization. Yet, when a few homosexuals "sneak in" and abuse boys, then the Boy Scouts are sued.

Clearly, the real goal is the destruction of the Boy Scouts of America. They are an icon of everything the Left hates. They have a clear, defined moral code. They teach children something other than collectivist propaganda. They're successful at what they do, and they're popular.

The very term "Boy Scout" implies integrity, honesty and selfless service to God and country. If there are principles that the Left hates more thoroughly than those, I am unaware of them.

They want to destroy the organization, from within and without. Period.

4
posted on 07/28/2006 11:09:46 AM PDT
by TChris
(Banning DDT wasn't about birds. It was about power.)

This would be a good time for the Boy Scouts to publicly state that, in spite of their best efforts, occasionally a faggot slips through, and this is why they do not allow KNOWN faggots to join their organization. Now, since they have reasonable cause to suspect the sex deviates' activity that will occur if they are allowed to join, they have legitimized their position, and a reasonable court could find that the ACLU/NAMBLA/Faggots-R-Us/etc. do NOT have to be allowed to join, and it is NON-DISCRIMINATORY as it is in self-defense. Case closed.

Although that's probably the response, the mere attempt to justify deviates being allowed to join would be damaged significantly by public perception, and the court would be faced with the battle of competing expert witnesses arguing the point, ad nauseum, and coming to some compromise that would be SHORT of forcing cut-off's of public funding of the Boy Scouts, I believe. (depends if it gets past the the 9th Circus Court of Appeals, which surely would be where the ACLU would bring the case to get to the 9th Circus).

Yes, I must admit that my disgust for predators over rode my common sense. There are probably innocent people in those files as well. And, the BSA are in a tough position on this: damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Either way, a law suit is going to happen.

But, BTW, one thing I will not back up on: BSA should have the right to discriminate against gay scoutmasters. If anyone wants a Queer Scouts organization, let them create one.

When someone wants to register as an adult leader with a Troop, Pack, Crew or Ship, the Committee Chair of the unit's committee and the Institutional Representative or the Institutional Head sign off on it stating that they believe the individual to be of good character and fit to serve. The IH is the head of the organization sponsoring the unit (Rector of the church, President of the PTA, etc.); the IR would be someone designated by the IH to represent the sponsoring institution to the unit and make sure the unit is acting in the sponsor's interests and is being run in accordance with the policies of both the sponsor and the BSA.

The BSA has no way to police the character and actions of whoever the sponsor decides to sign up. That's the sponsor's job. If allegations or offenses do surface, the BSA can and does ban that person from being registered with the BSA, but there's little that they can do before the fact; they are not there observing. A BSA unit belongs to the sponsor, it's not run directly by the BSA. I'd like to know what these folks think the BSA could have done about these situations.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.